Law Times

Law Times • apriL 20, 2015 Page 9 www.lawtimesnews.com A call for a balanced convocation e are members of the On- tario Solicitor Network, a group of lawyers who be- lieve that a more diverse Convocation that includes a larger and fairer number of solicitors is in the best in- terests of the legal profession and the public. The lawyers and paralegals who practise in Ontario are regulated by the Law Society of Upper Canada which, in turn, is gov- erned by the benchers. Next to the federal and provincial elections, the bencher elec- tion is arguably the most important elec- tion in Ontario given that the legal system is critical to the economic, cultural, and social well-being of every person in Ontario. Convocation should be composed of ac- complished and public-spirited benchers who ref lect the demographic and practice diversity of the profession. Eight bencher positions are reserved for appointed lay benchers to ref lect the public perspective. By statute, five bencher positions are re- served for paralegals. The academic and government bars are fairly represented. Historically, there has been a large prepon- derance of barristers in Convocation but a dearth of solicitors. Currently, there are about six times as many barrister benchers as solicitors even though the latter, includ- ing in-house counsel, make up more than half of the practising bar. The historic underrepresentation of solicitors on our governing body has meant that the solicitor bar has not been fully engaged in making policy. For ex- ample, many committees have no or very few solicitors on them. It has also meant that many important solicitor issues have not received the attention they deserve. For example, Convocation has had a real estate committee for only seven of the last 30 years despite the immense challenges faced by the real estate bar and the fact that that area of practice is so thorny that it consistently results in a large number of complaints and negligence claims. We firmly believe that a Convocation that is more balanced between barristers and solicitors is in the best interests of the public. It is also in the best interests of our profession as a whole. As the next Convo- cation will address such difficult and mul- tifaceted issues as access to justice and alter- nate business structures, it is important that the two key components of the profession have strong representation at the table. This year, term limits and other fac- tors have resulted in only two solicitor in- cumbents running for re-election. With approximately 20 vacancies this year, it is critical that a larger and fairer number of solicitors be elected. When casting your votes for bencher, we respectfully urge you to keep in mind this need for balance. Let's elect a strong, diverse Convocation that includes meaningful numbers of both barristers and solicitors. Abraham Feinstein, Soloway Wright LLP, Ottawa; Bradley Wright, The Wright Law Firm, Nepean, Ont. MEMORIAL TO COMMUNIST VICTIMS SUPPORTED In Richard Cleroux's article about the conf lict between Canada's chief justice and the prime minister, you point out that in addition to the problem of judicial ap- pointments, there is a clash of views over the proposed monument to the victims of communism that is to be built next to the Supreme Court building in Ottawa (see "Communist memorial yet another source of discord with judges," Feb. 2). As I gather from the article, the chief justice does not feel the proposed monu- ment is appropriate for the location pro- posed because it is rather bleak and bru- tal. She is entitled to her view on this. I would just say that in my case, I sup- port the construction of the monument as proposed. The monument, located as it will be next to the Supreme Court of Canada, will quite appropriately remind Canadians of what happens when the rule of law is ignored. It will serve to re- mind us of the horrors that communism has brought into this world, including for example, the great Chinese famine of 1958-62 that, according to Yang Jish- eng in his book Tombstone, resulted in more than 30 million victims, and the Ukrainian Holodomor famine in which various experts have estimated the losses exceeded four million people in Ukraine proper and seven million when the sur- rounding Ukrainian regions were in- cluded. The monument will indeed be a re- minder of these bleak and brutal facts, as the chief justice has indicated, but it also will honour those who died and in that way will remind us all of our right as hu- man beings to live our lives free of harm and mistreatment by totalitarian regimes. I write these comments just to put on the record that opposition to the monu- ment is not the unanimous position of the legal community. I support the chief justice on the ap- pointments but obviously disagree on the monument. In fact, I call on other members of my profession to support the monument as proposed. Andy Semotiuk, Pace Law Firm, Toronto Untitled-2 1 2015-01-06 8:56 AM COMMENT W u LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

• Cover